This has basically been updated to be a pure grinder list. Everyone who hasn't spent money is still heavily invested in that one deck they were able to make over the last couple months, so this list is just a brutally efficient way to grind out wins very fast. As stated, it took me 30 mins with an 80% win rate to get all the "F2P" grinding done in the win-category. Probably going to take me another 10 minutes to do my play quest with some random deck full of 1-drops.

That's not saying this isn't competitive. I'm going way up on ladder (playing mostly against gold people too) very fast. A 13-3 and then 7-3 win rate (for the two iterations of the deck) aren't anything to scoff at. But this deck is probably more optimized for getting wins fast than consistently. If I was trying to have the highest win% possible than I would be running other things instead like Scavenger Grounds and Goblin Chainwhirler that I took out of the deck.

ChangeLog:

I removed the Harsh Mentors, Soul-Scar Mages, Goblin Chainwhirlers, and Scavenger Grounds's because those are matchup specific cards designed to deal with things I'm just not running into in a free to play environment. Most people can't afford to play The Scarab God, so cards like Scavenger Grounds are currently less valuable. None of Harsh Mentor's matchups were showing up either, and I wasn't playing against enough mirrors to justify the Chainwhirlers. And there isn't enough indestructible crap running around where the Mages are relevant.

I expect to at least add one copy of Scavenger Grounds back into the deck once I start seeing more meta decks. Will probably replace a Mountain. Not sure about the rest yet. Honestly the cards I took out are really what I would have in my side-board tbh.. IF I HAD ONE.

Dunes of the Dead is just a better desert to sac to Ramunap Ruins. I found that I liked having exactly 9 deserts in my deck and needed one more to pick, so I picked the best remaining desert to sac to Ramunap.

Daring Buccaneer and Goblin Trailblazer are just more brutal when you are going first, and this deck is first and foremost a grinder deck, so that's how those got picked.

For better or worse, Dominaria has not added anything worth shoving in here until we end up with a BO3 format or people start countering me. It did add good cards.... but those don't fit into the most aggro variant possible. If I made a more mid-range deck with things like Glorybringer that expansion would be invaluable however.

_________________

"Let strength be granted so the world might be mended. So the world might be mended."

I think I'm gonna have to cut something for at least more Land. Deck took 2 or 3 losses were I got stuck at 2 mana (and managed to win when I got stuck on 3 in the mirror against a resolved Hazoret)Rigging Runners have been the under-performers lately.

I have a pretty different RDW myself. I still have like the 8000 gold from last night, two mythic and two rare wildcards but damnit I keep it all hoping to convince myself to make some cool jank.This is what I've been using. Hate netdecking the same old same old but even with that this is far from perfected.

Anything not running 4 Earthshaker Khenra and 4 Ahn-Crop Crasher isn't what people are talking about when they are talking about RDW in MTG: Arena. You are running more of a midrange mono-red dino's deck that doesn't have the aggro start. You have too many substitutes to be running the same game-plan tbh.

In my opinion, even the actual midrange RDW deck is worse than the RDW aggro deck in the arena meta until we get important missing cards from Kaladesh block, like Shock. The archtype is mainly trying to race turn 2 Essence Scatter and the following curve you expect most control opponents to play, so you really need the Khenras and the Crashers to be running the Standard version of the deck people are using RDW to refer to. I personally think cards like Rekindling Phoenix, which do end up in RDW lists, are too slow in Arena until we get a Bo3 format with side-boarding.

Side-Note: You need to use only // instead of /// for cards with that in the name to work. That's just how the auto-card on this site works for some reason.

I think I'm gonna have to cut something for at least more Land. Deck took 2 or 3 losses were I got stuck at 2 mana (and managed to win when I got stuck on 3 in the mirror against a resolved Hazoret)Rigging Runners have been the under-performers lately.

Disclaimer: The following is all my opinion. I am not telling you that you have to do anything, and the following are just suggestions. They will come across as me saying my opinions are facts, but that's just how I type.

You want to run a pirates package or a wizards package, not both. This means running Ghitu Lavarunner, Soul-Scar Mage, and Fanatical Firebrand; or it means running all 3 1-drop pirates. Right now you are doing a mix, which is bad. That is why your Rigging Runners are under-performing. Ghitu Lavamancer is also a common, so it shouldn't be too hard to get if you want to stick with wizards.

Wizard's Lightning is really good if you decide to put in the lavarunners (which are commons) and not good enough if you don't, in my opinion. This card is also begging you to run a full 12 1-drop creatures, again in my opinion.

Your 3 drop curve is fine as is (to answer your question), and I think running 10 one-drops (as long as you are running 8 wizards or 10 pirates) along with this is a good way to add Magma Spray or Shock into the deck. Which you've done.

Your 2-drop curve is not fine. You only have 4 2-drops. 10 1-drops into 4 2-drops into 6 3-drops is not a good curve. You kind of want to find room for 3-4 more 2 drops somehow. Goblin Trailblazer is a good candidate if you decide to go with a pirate package; and Burning-Fist Minotaur, Pathmaker Initiate, and Ghitu Chronicler are probably your best options if you go with a wizards package. The minotaur is uncommon while the other two are common.

I run 23 lands and I am fine. But I only have 4 cards that cost more than 3, and I have less 3 drops in my deck. Your problem is that you took that bad "22 land" advice and are only running 22 lands. But you have 10 3 cost cards and 6 4 drop cards in your deck. That doesn't make any sense. Yes, this fixes your opening hand sometimes, but it doesn't fix your draws after that and you are just begging to be mana starved (which you are complaining about). Your curve either needs to go down a bit and you need to run 22-23 lands, or you need to cut some cards and run 24 lands.

_________________

"Let strength be granted so the world might be mended. So the world might be mended."

I've already tradde out the Runners for lavarunners, but just 2. I agree on the 2-drops, but besides earthshakers, the others just don't convince me.I'm gonna screw around with some ideas, but the deck wins enough already. It's not like it's underperforming on a whole.Pheonix has lost some value due to all the exile effects. I think I'll probably cut them next, but they're still good in some match-ups.I don't aggree on the pirates or wizards package being exclusive. You can run a mix without any problems, the only cards that are dependant on the tribal aspect are the Buccaneers and the wizard bolts. Buccaneers are not really what I'm looking for atm, but the bolts are fine at 3 mana. I like the extra Reach, which is what usually gives me the edge vs UW control decks.Runners are fine in a non-pirate deck, as strong 2nd turn 1-drops.As for Land... Well that's a very old debate. My Instinct tells me that 24 Land is way too much for any aggro deck, but this version of Rdw happens to have flood protection built in, which has lead people to believe more Land is better, but I still flood with 22 quite often. I actually lost a game today with opponent at 1 life were I drew 4 lands in a row (none of which was a Sunscorched Desert). So it's still debatable, although I know nobody agree with me.I'm so old school, that I believe aggro decks (they were called.weenie decks back then and Rdw was called sligh) should run 20 Land pure and simple because you want to draw 2 spells for every Land you draw.

I'm so old school, that I believe aggro decks (they were called.weenie decks back then and Rdw was called sligh) should run 20 Land pure and simple

This has never been the rule or "standard wisdom". If you were ever taught otherwise that person was/is wrong. Anything with 3 drops should be running at least 22 lands, and anything with 4 drops should run 23 minimum and very much consider running 24. 20 lands is downright stupid outside of legacy and vintage, with very rare very powerful exceptions in modern that in no way constitute a good example of what a general aggro deck should look like.

22 lands in a deck with 8 3 drops and nothing above 3 but Hazoret is currently debateable ONLY because of the starting hand modifier in best of one. If that didn't exist the general consensus would be 23 or 24.

Edit:

I'm going to take that back and not say "never", but by this day and age the math has been exhaustively done to the point where it's very clear 20 lands in an aggro deck is generally a bad mana base.

Edit 2: If you disagree, this should be a topic on the main subforum.

_________________

"Let strength be granted so the world might be mended. So the world might be mended."

Nobody taught me, nobody told me. I started playing Magic before mana-curves had been invented. That was a concept "Created" by the sligh deck.I've even played an 18 Land suicide black deck to a top-8 once.I think that the current Magic player's mindset has been brainwashed by the curve concept dogma. It's all so set in stone that nobody dares think outside the box anymore with the fear that they'll be ridiculed.So what's the math? Karsten's mana calculations? Totally correct from a statistical stand-point and if and when you want to have 90% probability of getting x Land by turn x...Sure, but if my deck is almost 50% Land, I'm gonna top-deck Land 50% of the time.Oh, but my opponent will as well... But that's just it, I want to draw more spells than my opponent, that's a kind of card-advantage in itself. High risk, high pay-off... Maybe?But that's why aggro has to run less Land than a midrange or control deck. Aggro is always a gamble. You want to pressure your opponent before he can set up. Can't do that with nothing but Land...Bad mana base? Sure, if you want to be 90% sure to get to 4 mana by T4, but you don't really need to in a good aggro deck. A good aggro deck can and should work with 2 lands, even if it has to wait for the 3rd and 4th land a couple of turns. Drawing too much Land is always bad news for aggro. When I count my cards and see over 50% Land, I know I'm screwed.Sure, the curve is off. I only have 60 something percent probability of getting something by turn something... Yeah, the universe doesn't follow statistical laws, they only apply with a big enough sample. Statistics try to explain reality, but the fact of the matter is that reality all too often displays anomalies. The fact that life even exists is an anomally.When your playing one game, this game, RNG can go anyway it likes. It's more karma than math. Especially so with computer RNG.

But people have done the math, so its got to be right, right?

I'm never locked in to any one single concept and I don't believe in dogmas. There is nothing that cannot be contested.My decks have to feel right. If I play them enough they'll tell me what is off and needs fixing. It's not science, it's an art. Like all artists, sometimes your inspired and get it right, other times you won't. Am I crazy for doing it that way? Maybe, I just don't like to blindly follow what others tell me, I have to do it for my own reasons.

Anyway, all this to say that there are more factors in deckbuilding than just mana-curves. Card-power, synergy, flow, tempo, card-advantage, meta-related issues, personal tastes, playing style, risk/reward trade-offs, etc.

Do I know everything? No. Do you know everything? No. Is your opinion better than mine? I'll only know if I listen to it and try it out, my way.

You should not run 20 lands in most aggro decks. That is way too few. This is a FACT.

This isn't up for debate. It's not a dogma. It is an actual fact people have worked very hard to establish as fact. It is a fact you can very easily google the statistics on. People have done the math time and time again because the math is integral to the very fundamental core of deck-building in Magic the Gathering. This is not a fact because how many lands you should run is a dogma people repeat mindlessly. It's a fact because people have spent the last 25 years learning that it is a fact through sheer raw mathematical analysis that cannot be argued with. Saying that you should run 20 lands in most aggro decks is equivalent to saying that Squirtle is a fire type pokemon. It's so absurd that no one will take you or your decks seriously unless they are similarly bad at the game. And yes, if you actually believe this, you are bad at the game. Because you are doing it wrong.

only work as an intelligent argument when people haven't spent the last 25 years trying to disprove the fact you are disagreeing with. If it wasn't right, someone would have come up with a reason why by now, and there would be credible evidence for why aggro decks should run 20 lands. I gurantee you there is a 100% chance that people way smarter than both of us have tried and failed to do so.

The reality is that aggro decks should still run 22+ lands, because that's a sane mana curve, and you are doing it wrong and bad at the game if you are only running 20 lands. Ignoring established wisdom like this and trying to figure it out for yourself is just stupid. Yes, that is the actual word to describe the act of ignoring most of 25 years worth of experience to "figure it out for yourself" and come up with the very wrong answer that is very clearly wrong by now.

You might as well be saying that aggro decks should run 65 cards. That is how far out of line a 20 land mana curve is in the vast majority of aggro decks in Standard. Is running the 60 card minimum the next fact you want to start disagreeing with? I'm assuming not, because you're running 60 cards. But that's literally how bad a 20 land mana base is.

In fact the 60 card rule is more up for debate than running 20 lands in a standard deck is. People are still debating whether 61 cards can be better in some circumstances, and they at a minimum have credible enough arguments that people are taking them seriously. There is absolutely no argument for running 20 lands in a current standard RDW deck. That's just plain wrong.

Edit: I've had a life-time's worth of this nonsense with Shadowcran, so this is my last post on the subject. You can get the last word and say whatever you want. If you start posting 20 land decks, and this forum is not dead at that point, someone else will continuously insult your mana bases for me.

_________________

"Let strength be granted so the world might be mended. So the world might be mended."

Probabilities aren't facts. There are no facts when random luck is involved and "people smarter than both of us" isn't a credible or reliable source. Oh, but it's what everyone says... That's the trap. Ignoring wisdom? No, I just don't accept it blindly.

Dave Price won a pro-tour with a 20 Land deck (this was around the time I played paper magic). But I guess he was stupid.Before you go and post decklists with 24, 25, 26 land, just stop. There isn't only one right way to do things, and I can tell you that if A deck feels right to me with 20 Land, then screw the people smarter than me, call me stupid, call me whatever... If it works, I don't fix it.

Oh and I am bad at this game, but Barney gets incredible winning streaks running my decks. Don't know if they're 20 landers or not, I don't care. I didn't say all aggro decks should run 20 lands, what I said was aggro decks want more threats/spells than non-aggro decks because since they normally don't run many card advantage cards, it's one way of generating virtual card advantage.

Let's do some simple math. I have 20 Land in my deck(33.33%). I run nothing but threats and Land.You have 24 Land (40%) and run nothing but answers. We both go 20 cards deep. I've drawn 6.66 Land rounds up to 7 and 13 threats. You've drawn 8 Lands but only 12 answers. So, 1 of my threats went unanswered. Who wins? Is my logic flawed? Did 25 years of wisdom over-look this?Why do people run 24 Lands in aggro decks? Because they believe its important to curve out until T4 at least. (Probably better 4 drops today). Why is that important? Because that means you can probably cast all the spells in your deck reliably in that game, but does that ensure a win? No. So, why not run 30 lands? Well, I guess that's because you'll flood too often.

Don't act like your a grandmaster deck-builder. I don't get easily offended, but you were offensive. The idea is to share ideas, not to call people stupid for thinking differently from you. Don't agree? Fine, just don't be a prick about it.

That was 20 years ago though. Also it only maindecked 2 cards over 2 mana. You’d play that deck with 20 lands even now. If anything, he was high on land count given the curve, imo.

Exactly! I played Magic 20 years ago. I'm old school.So, sometimes playing 20 is right? Or even less? That's what I've been saying all along.My deckbuilding Instinct tells me I should be making 20 Land decks, not the every deck should have 20 lands.

That was 20 years ago though. Also it only maindecked 2 cards over 2 mana. You’d play that deck with 20 lands even now. If anything, he was high on land count given the curve, imo.

Exactly! I played Magic 20 years ago. I'm old school.So, sometimes playing 20 is right? Or even less? That's what I've been saying all along.My deckbuilding Instinct tells me I should be making 20 Land decks, not the every deck should have 20 lands.

Im not following the conversation but Haven is right. Probably DJ too. Havens decks have been insanely consistent for me (and we’re not talking ten games here or anything), and I keep two landers all the time. His two best decks, for me, are Boros Warriors Guild and Grixvolutions. I’ll go check the land count, brb

Lol Warriors Guild is 22 land but Grizvolutions, a three colour deck, is only 20 land and I win all the time with that thing

Haven, I am old school like you. I have the same tendencies. The one thing that has changed for me is that many land are more than just land now.

Like look at Mjacks deck for example. 23 land sounds high to me for agro at first, but he has 8 3 CC and 4 4CC spells, so he does need at least 22 to stay on curve (Not to mention eternalize, but more a late game option). The problem is extra land draws. But that is somewhat solved by the utility lands. 4 Ramunap Ruins are effectively shocks if he hits 5 mana. If you consider those 4 lands as spells, you are down to 19 land. He has 5 other utility land, although one does require Ramunap to be useful.

IMO, the issue isn't how many land you run, but how many dead cards you have to run. Many land are no longer dead cards anymore.

And Mjack, the deck looks good. I like the Dunes add. That list is pretty much what I expect when facinging RDW (Although some will run Glory Bringers as well, I think they can be a bit mana intensive) I agree on the Phoenix, since there is so many exile effects in the meta. Plus, for 6 mana, a Scarab can steal it with a kill/revive.

Honestly, from RDW I expect T1 Fanatic, T2 Earhshaker, T3 Crop. Also, if I have noticed that RDW are the most aggressive mulliganers in the meta, so when I see a mulligan I expect to play RDW and mulligan/play T1 based on that assumption. I don't mind playing RDW at all. It is the approach decks I absolutely hate. I actually want more RDW to punish (Hopefully) all of the approach decks.

Your right Wintervoid, the current Ramunap red deck has all sorts of built-in flood protection, so it can run 24 or even more Land and get away with it.I even faced a version with Treasure maps today and I lost during a quick constructed event. The most Common version is nearly mid-range. What makes it fast and viable is all the haste (and probably why we consider it aggro).I'm testing a pure aggro version atm. Went 6-3 in a qce today.I cut the pheonixes and Ferocidons and added more 1 drops and I'm also testing and over-looked 2 drop: Nimble-Blade Khenra (what a shame it isn't a wizard). It's actually been good, it can block most of the mirror creatures and since I'm running 12 spells, the prowess can be relevant. I only have 1 atm and I ran out of Common WCs, but I like them enough to try a set.Hazoret did something she never did to me before, appear in multiples (had 3 in hand one of the games).

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum